News you can use from Aaron Carroll:

Perhaps no one in the United States has spent more time investigating the occurrence of bacteria on public surfaces than Charles Gerba.

According to Carroll, Gerba's research tells us that it's just fine to eat food that you've dropped on the floor. This sounds suspiciously like motivated reasoning to support the stereotypical male point of view, and I'm a little curious to learn what Mrs. Carroll thinks of this. I suppose we'll never know. In any case, the argument here is that your average floor is no more germy than any other surface in your house, and less so than many. Kitchen floors, for example, have about half the bacteria of kitchen counters.

That's all fair enough, but what about ordinary old dirt and dust? My kitchen counters have almost none of that. My kitchen floor has lots, thanks to the fact that I walk on it, the cats walk on it, the dust accumulates until I vacuum it, and so forth. It may be that dirt and dust aren't likely to make you sick, but it's still a little disgusting to have it all over your food. Or am I being a little too fastidious here?

Of course, it also depends on the food item. If a peanut M&M fell on the floor, I'd have no qualms about rubbing it clean with my shirt and then eating it. But a leftover piece of chicken? Probably not.

I wonder what Donald Trump would think of all this? He's a famous germaphobe, but he also apparently thinks that fast food is safer than other foods because it's highly processed and standardized. So what would he think about an M&M that fell on the floor?

UPDATE: Mrs. Carroll speaks!

A new paper from a trio of Fed researchers suggests that our recent sluggish growth is mostly a result of demographic changes and technological slowdown. The retired share of the population has increased, which means the working share of the population has decreased. Since workers are the ones who produce goods and services, it makes sense that GDP growth will slow down in an economy with fewer adults of working age. Ditto for an economy in which technological progress is slackening.

I've pointed out the same thing before in the case of Japan, and it makes sense. But how about in the US? The easiest way to see the rough shape of the river is to simply look at GDP per working-age adult. That eliminates most of the demographic issues. When you do this for the US, you get a trendline that still shows a decline in GDP growth: it's down by about one percentage point since 1978.

You can also look at total factor productivity, which gives us an idea of the effect of technological change that's independent of demographics. Over the past 60 years, it's been pretty flat.

Both of these are volatile series, so take them with a grain of salt. That said, productivity hasn't changed much, but GDP per working-age adult has steadily decreased anyway. This suggests that neither demographics nor technological progress really explains things. So what does?

NOTE: This bit of amateur economics was made possible by a grant from the Committee to Prevent Endless Blogging About Donald Trump. The author thanks them for their generosity.

This is only one poll, and the sample size is small. Still, it's the well-respected WSJ/NBC poll, and it suggests the possibility of unprecedented doom for the GOP in November:

In the new survey, Mrs. Clinton jumped to an 11-point lead over Mr. Trump among likely voters on a ballot including third-party candidates, up from 6 percentage points in September....The weekend survey found signs of women moving away from Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton’s advantage among women increased to 21 percentage points, from 12 points in the September Journal/NBC Survey. Mr. Trump retained a small, single-point advantage among men.

Eleven points! Among women, Clinton is now 21 points ahead, up nine points since the previous poll. This polling was done over the weekend, after the Pussygate tape was released but before Sunday's debate.

In other words, it might get even worse. In fact, since the rumor mill suggests that more videos of Trump are coming over the next few weeks, it probably will get worse. Trump seems to think that a press conference with Paula Jones will turn this around, but that's beyond crazy. Republicans are already jumping ship to save their own skins, and polls like today's will feed the panic. Soon Trump will have nothing left but the Old Confederacy—a fitting end for a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic creep.

Liveblogging a debate is an odd thing: You have to listen carefully to what the candidates are saying, but you're also furiously typing away to deliver your brilliant commentary to a waiting world. For me, it's exhausting. I have a one-track writing mind, and it doesn't appreciate having background distractions. That's why I can't listen to music or have the TV going while I blog.

Obviously I have no choice during debates, but it means sometimes I miss things. Especially visual things. However, I know that my readers want to be au courant on all internet memes, so here's one I missed last night: Looming Trump. Apparently Donald Trump is too hyperactive to simply sit in his chair when the other person is talking, so instead he wandered the stage. More often than not, he ended up about five feet behind Hillary Clinton, looming over her:

My guess is that this wasn't deliberate on Trump's part. It's just an instinctive part of the stupid dominance games that control his life. On the other hand, some of his stupid dominance games were very, very deliberate:

Donald Trump’s campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband by seating women who have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual abuse in the Trump family’s box at the presidential debate here Sunday night, according to four people involved in the discussions.

The campaign’s plan, which was closely held and unknown to several of Trump’s top aides, was thwarted just minutes before it could be executed when officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened....The gambit to give Bill Clinton’s accusers prime seats was devised by Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon and Jared Kushner, the candidate’s son-in-law, and approved personally by Trump.

That's Jared Kushner, as in "Ivanka Trump's husband":

As the candidates' immediate family members shook hands it was also noticeable that Ivanka Trump and Chelsea Clinton, friends of years' standing, ignored each other. Ms Trump had spent the last few days absorbing the news that her father once called her a "voluptuous piece of a--". She looked sad, almost tearful, throughout the ensuing 90 minutes as Mr Trump attempted to crush the life out of his opponent.

Um...I'm not sure that's why Ivanka and Chelsea weren't on speaking terms. I think my boss has the better take:

I had the weirdest dream last night. I was in this big room with American flags all around, and it turned out I was watching a presidential debate. But unlike the real debate, this one featured Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump. It was totally surreal. The moderators were asking Trump about sexual assault and Trump was insulting someone or another—maybe Rosie O'Donnell? I couldn't tell. But seriously, it was Donald Trump. Can you imagine?

Then I woke up. Whew. But it turns out the GOP is stuck in nightmare hell, and there's no waking up for them:

The Republican Party was at the brink of civil war on Sunday as Donald J. Trump signaled he would retaliate against lawmakers who withdraw their support from his campaign, and senior party leaders privately acknowledged that they now feared losing control of both houses of Congress.

....A wave of defections from Mr. Trump’s candidacy, prompted by the revelation of a recording that showed him bragging about sexual assault, was met with boastful defiance by the Republican presidential nominee....In a set of talking points sent to his supporters Sunday morning, Mr. Trump’s campaign urged them to attack turncoat Republicans as “more concerned with their political future than they are about the country.”

....Much of the party appeared to be in a state of paralysis, uncertain of how to achieve political distance from Mr. Trump without enraging millions of voters who remained loyal to his campaign....The Republican National Committee took on the aspect of a fortress: Numerous Republicans who sought to reach the committee’s top officials said they were unable to get through, though Reince Priebus, the committee’s chairman, flew beside Mr. Trump to the debate in St. Louis, even as Republican elected officials rejected their nominee en masse.

On Saturday I pondered what the Republican Party would do when appeals to its white base were no longer enough to win. Perhaps this is the answer: they'll go up in smoke. Maybe that's what it takes to force a major party into the kind of profound change they need to survive.

According to CNN, debate watchers thought Hillary Clinton won the debate, 57-34 percent. CNN's focus group was something like 20-1 in favor of Clinton.

But! Trump did better than expected. He didn't spontaneously combust on stage, so I suppose that's a fair comment.

Elsewhere on CNN, the big topic is Trump's declaration to Hillary Clinton that if he wins he'll appoint a special prosecutor to "look into your situation." Aside from the odious Scottie Nell Hughes, this was pretty unanimously panned as un-American and unprecedented. It's banana republic stuff, not mature democracy stuff. Even Wolf Blitzer felt obliged to denounce it.

Trump has said this before, so it's not actually news. But saying it on national TV in front of 80 million people? That's different. The only good news for Trump is that it's probably not the kind of thing Clinton really wants to talk about.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, stands with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the first presidential debate at Hofstra University, Monday, Sept. 26, 2016, in Hempstead, N.Y.

Well. That was something, wasn't it?

Trump didn't crash and burn like he did in the first debate, so I suppose that has to be counted as a victory of sorts. But on substance he almost literally said nothing. Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary Clinton in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; Michelle Obama hates her; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening. He also seems to have decided that he liked Tim Kaine's VP performance, and insisted on interrupting constantly.

I guess it was something of a Hail Mary. No ordinary debate performance was likely to help Trump at this point, so why not shoot the moon? But it didn't work. He spit out an endless stream of lies, in the hopes that the audience would just be confused. Maybe a lot of voters will be. But surely the majority won't be impressed? I hope so, anyway.

Hillary Clinton was aggressive too, but nowhere near on Trump's level. She called out his lies, but wisely decided not to waste her speaking time trying to refute them all. Trump was ineffective on her emails, and Clinton did a good job of deflecting questions about them. Trump insisted that he never abused any women and the Pussygate tape was just him making empty boasts. Clinton said it showed who he really was. Trump claimed yet again that Clinton's team started the birther controversy, and twice invoked the specter of the evil Sidney Blumenthal. That's not going to impress anyone except longtime Clinton haters.

On policy, Clinton was her usual composed self and Trump was his usual hot mess. The Muslim ban "somehow" morphed into extreme vetting. He'll replace Obamacare with something or other, and it will be fantastic. Saying "radical Islamic terrorism" over and over is the key to fighting ISIS. If he wins, he's going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Clinton (!). On Syria, I literally couldn't understand what he was trying to say.

Overall, this was not quite the shellacking that Trump took in the first debate, but it wasn't a good look. Unfortunately, we'll never really know how it affected him. There will be polls next week, but they'll be responding to both the debate and Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" remarks. So there's no telling what's causing what.

That said, this was clearly another win for Clinton. She was calm and composed, and got in plenty of shots at Trump. Trump, by contrast, very definitely didn't look like a guy you want in charge of the nuclear codes.

A full transcript of the debate is here.

A few minutes ago Donald Trump appeared at an impromptu press event with three women who claim to have been abused by Bill Clinton and a fourth who was treated badly by Hillary. That sets a tone, doesn't it?

10:37 - And that's a wrap.

10:36 - Trump likes his children too. Trump: "She doesn't quit, she doesn't give up. She's a fighter."

10:34 - Is there anything you respect in your opponent? Trump doesn't want to answer. Clinton says she respects Trump's children.

10:33 - Still no questions about climate change.

10:32 - Clinton, dryly: "That was very interesting." I have a comprehensive energy policy etc.

10:30 - How about energy? Trump: Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business. "There's such a thing as clean coal." Now we're on to the steelworkers for some reason. Solar is great, but now we're back to coal. Coal, coal, coal.

10:27 - Trump: I would appoint judges like Scalia. Judges who respect the Second Amendment. Now Trump is claiming that he's not taking money from big donors and corporations. He thinks Clinton is rich enough that she ought to be donating lots of money to her own campaign.

10:24 - How would you choose Supreme Court justices? Clinton: I'd like to appoint people with real-life experience. Overturn Citizens United. Uphold civil rights. Stick with Roe v. Wade and marriage equality.

10:22 - Trump is just all over the place now. I can't keep up. Benghazi, 3 am, tweeting, sex tapes, etc. etc.

10:20 - Trump on Clinton: "She has tremendous hate in her heart."

10:16 - Question to Trump: "Do you believe that you can be a devoted president to all of the people of the United States?" Weird question.

10:15 - Clinton says she's in favor of arming the Kurds. Trump complains again that Clinton is getting too much time to speak.

10:13 - Clinton: "Donald says he knows a lot more than the generals. He doesn't." Big smirk from Trump.

10:12 - Clinton opposed to using American ground forces in Syria.

10:10 - Is Trump in favor of intervening in Syria? Or staying out? I can't tell. Now Trump is ranting about not keeping our military plans secret.

10:08 - I literally don't even know what Trump is saying about Syria. I guess Raddatz doesn't either. "Let me ask the question again." Trump then says that he disagrees with Mike Pence about Russia.

10:03 - Raddatz finally manages to shut Trump down and move on to another subject even though Trump insists that he should be able to respond yet again. Good for her.

10:02 - So far a grand total of two ordinary citizens have asked questions. This isn't much of a town hall.

10:00 - Why didn't Clinton change the tax code? Clinton: "Because I was a senator under a Republican president." Trump interrupts to insist that she could have done it anyway if she really wanted to.

9:58 - Trump now basically admitting he used his $916 million operating loss to avoid paying taxes. "Of course I did." Now ranting about how everyone does it and Clinton never tried to fix it because her rich donor pals like the tax code the way it is.

9:57 - Clinton hammering on Trump for paying no taxes for past 20 years. Obviously she's trying to bait Trump.

9:56 - Clinton: "Everything he just said is false. I'm sorry I have to keep saying that."

9:54 - What will you do ensure that the rich pay their fair share in taxes? Trump mentions the carried interest loophole, and that's it. The rest of his answer is a long free association that has nothing to do with the rich.

9:52 - Trump is sniffing again. Maybe he really does do this every time he speaks?

9:51 - Trump is talking about Russia, and without a pause starts talking about how great his balance sheet is.

9:48 - How aggressive would Trump be in the debate? We have our answer. He's just attacking without stop and now griping about not getting enough time. Bush league.

9:42 - Question about Trump's Muslim ban. Is it still his policy? Trump: Muslim ban "somehow" morphed into "extreme vetting." Raddatz: How did it morph? Trump just repeats it: It's. Called. Extreme. Vetting.

9:40 - Clinton: "Trump is playing into the hands of the terrorists."

9:38 - What are you going to do about Islamaphobia? Trump: We have to say "radical Islamic terrorism" as often as possible.

9:36 - Trump is all over the map on how he'll replace Obamacare. Mostly he's doubling down on the notion that allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines will fix everything. Clinton is biting her lip to keep from laughing.

9:33 - Trump: Obamacare is a total disaster. Will collapse on its own in 2017. I guess there's no real need to repeal it, then.

9:29 - Trump is now interrupting constantly. Anderson Cooper tells him to shut up. He won't. Then he gripes that Cooper hasn't asked about Clinton's emails even though they just spent the last five minutes on the topic. "Great, three against one," Trump whines. I guess "the media hates me" is going to be a big theme tonight.

9:25 - Clinton: "It's a good thing you're not in charge of the law in this country." Trump: "Because you'd be in jail." Cheering.

9:21 - Trump: Blumenthal started the birther rumors. Michelle Obama hates you. Hillary won a rigged primary against Bernie Sanders. If he wins, he is going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her. Etc. I guess this is how Trump is going to play things.

9:20 - Clinton quotes Michelle Obama: "When they go low, you go high." Even bigger applause. Lotsa Trump haters out there too.

9:19 - There was applause for that? Yikes. Lotsa Bill haters still out there.

9:17 - Trump goes after Bill Clinton. He abused women, and "Hillary Clinton attacked those same women, attacked them viciously."

9:13 - Clinton not going easy on Trump. The Pussygate tape does show who Trump is. He's unfit to be president. And it's not just women. Etc.

9:11 - Anderson Cooper insists that Trump tell us whether he's ever kissed or groped women without their consent. He says he hasn't. "No one has greater respect for women than me."

9:09 - Trump starts out with a very low-key tone. Will it last?

9:08 - Will Hillary Clinton say that we should "move very strongly" on something or other? She should!

9:07 - Has this been an edifying campaign? Hmmm. I'm gonna say no.

9:05 - No handshake! They're ready to rumble!

9:01 - Dana Bash says Trump's goal is to keep the Republican Party from abandoning him completely.

8:56 - John King says the town hall format is unpredictable! Sure it is. I think we have a pretty good idea of what's coming.

While we pass the time waiting for tonight's debate, I'm going to talk through something else. Yesterday I wrote about one of the emails in the Podesta hack, and basically dismissed it. It was a review of the most potentially damaging statements from Hillary Clinton's paid speeches, and none of them struck me as damaging at all. Since then, several people I respect have suggested that they really are problematic. So let's go through the ones that are getting the most attention. There are eight.

1. Public and private positions: "I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position."

I get how this can be spun to make it look like Clinton is advocating that politicians should lie publicly. But seriously? This is just Negotiation 101. You always have a public position—We will never compromise!—and a private one—What will it take for you guys to make a deal? Anyone over the age of five knows this is how all negotiation everywhere works. The faux outrage over this doesn't impress me.

2. Oversimplification: "That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ’09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides."

First, Clinton is acknowledging that it's an oversimplification to say that the US banking system was solely responsible for the 2008 crash. Surely everyone understands now that this is true? European banks were heavily leveraged too, and were just as eager as US banks to lend too much money with too little oversight. They were also eager to play the derivatives game. What's more, there was more to the housing bubble than just the banks. Clinton's statement here seems unexceptional to me.

Second, she suggests that more transparency from the banks might have prevented "politicizing" the crisis. This probably merits a closer look than I originally gave it. Is she referring to Republican opposition to TARP? That would be reasonable. Or is she talking about taking a tough line against bank executives? That would be harder to excuse. Clinton would need to explain what she meant before we can really make any judgment about this.

3. Bankers know the banking system best: "Today, there’s more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself." AND: "There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry."

This doesn't sound great, I admit. On the other hand, Clinton is talking to bankers. So naturally she's talking about the role bankers can play in reforming financial regulation. Her wording may not thrill me, but it's not as if she's suggesting that the finance industry should be allowed to regulate itself. It's hard to get too worked up about this.

4. Principled bankers: "When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in ’06, ’07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, etc."

This is a nothingburger. There are plenty of principled people in the finance industry, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. And anyway, the gist of this excerpt is that even though she represented New York in the Senate, Clinton still called for regulating the finance industry because it was the right thing to do. This strikes me as entirely positive.

5. Bias against successful people: "But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary."

This is actually a pretty common criticism of public service these days: we lose a lot of good people because we make it too onerous to serve. The disclosure forms are hundreds of pages long. The divestment rules are thorny. The Senate hearings are nasty and partisan. It takes months or more to get through the whole thing. Plenty of people agree that things have gotten out of hand on this front.

6. Simpson-Bowles: "But Simpson-Bowles — and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today — put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth."

A few people have tried to play this as an attack on Social Security, since the Simpson-Bowles plan included cuts to Social Security. This is ridiculous. Clinton is obviously taking about generalities: tackling the federal deficit by cutting spending and raising more revenue.

7. Open borders: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

I really have no idea what this is about, but I assume Clinton is talking about some possible far future scenario, and pandering a bit to her Brazilian audience. She's never even remotely taken any actions that would push us toward a "hemispheric common market." Meh.

8. Protectionism: "I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade....Governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade."

I guess the Bernie supporters will take this as some kind of huge betrayal, but I don't. Clinton is opposed to protectionism. I've never thought otherwise, and I don't think anyone else has either.

Out of all this, I have two questions. What did Clinton mean by "politicizing" the financial crisis? And what did she mean when she kinda sorta implied that we should listen more to bankers because they know the banking system the best?

That's it. In other news, we learned that Clinton is pretty much the same person in private that she is in public. She's moderate, pragmatic, and willing to work across the aisle. She dislikes protectionism and thinks we should try to cut the budget deficit in a balanced way. She doesn't demonize Wall Street.

You may or may not like this, but it's who Hillary Clinton has been forever. There are no surprises here. So while I may have skipped past a couple of small things too quickly on my first read, my overall opinion remains the same: There's just nothing here that's plausibly damaging, even when it's run through the Donald Trump alternate universe pie hole. I guess we'll find out tonight if I'm right.

POSTSCRIPT: It's also worth noting that this is apparently the worst, most banker-sympathetic stuff they could find out of thousands of pages of speeches to bankers. If anything, this suggests that Clinton hasn't privately said much of anything that's especially friendly to Wall Street.

Of course I'll be liveblogging tonight's debate. How often do you get to watch a presidential candidate collapse in a heap on national television? It might happen! Or Trump might declare that we're about to be invaded by Martians and only he can save us. Who knows? Either way, hopefully tonight is the night that a lot of people wake up, rub the sleep out of their eyes, and finally say "Donald Trump? The reality TV clown? How did he make it this far? Was there something in the water or what?"

Anyway, the debate starts at 9 pm Eastern time and goes for 90 minutes without a break. I'll start up a few minutes before that. See you there.

Obviously Pussygate has to be addressed at tomorrow's debate. In theory, all the questions will come from the audience, but I'm assuming the moderators will open things up with a question or two of their own. My recollection—possibly mistaken—is that this is how past town-hall style debates have worked.

I hope so, anyway, because that will give them a chance to ask Trump the right question. They need to ask not about Donald Trump's lewd comments, but about his actual behavior. On the tape, Trump says "You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ― I just start kissing them....And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."

Forget the "locker room bantering." The question for Trump needs to be: How many times has this happened? How many times have you grabbed women "by the pussy"?

It's been obvious for a long time that the Republican Party has a big demographic problem: their core base is white voters, but the country is getting less and less white every year. Republicans are well aware of this, and have worked assiduously to overcome this weakness. In the early 90s, they zealously pursued pack-and-crack gerrymandering to create more majority-white congressional districts. A few years later Fox News came along, dedicated to nurturing the GOP's white base. George Bush and Karl Rove squeezed the last few drops out of the white evangelical community. Finally, in the late aughts, Republican legislatures passed a raft of voter ID laws in a last ditch attempt to suppress the non-white vote by a point or two.

But that was it. What more could they possibly do? The answer, to my surprise, was to nominate a man who was a straight-up bigot, and then run a campaign that was only a hair's breadth from being openly white nationalist. But it didn't work. Even in a Republican year against a flawed opponent, Donald Trump has lost as much as he's gained from his bald-faced appeal to whites. And now that his defeat is all but certain, the question hanging over the GOP is simple: what's next?

It's now plain—beyond any doubt—that Republicans can no longer win the presidency with only their white base. But after Hurricane Donald's performance this year, they're even further in the hole with minorities than ever. And there's really no sense that their white base is ready to accept a more minority-friendly party anyway. Past attempts at "post-mortems" and "autopsies" that recommended even bare minimum amounts of outreach to women and minorities were quickly and thoroughly crushed.

So now what?

I'm kind of curious: how do you think the whole "grab 'em by the pussy" affair would have played out if we'd had a transcript but no tape? The same? Or would it have dropped quickly out of sight without some audio and video to play constantly on cable news? I'd guess the latter. The power of sound and images has always been strong, but in the past couple of decades it's become simply immense. "Photo or it didn't happen" is a bit of a Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat joke, but it's not really much of a joke anymore.

Last month, after Donald Trump Jr. decided to compare refugees to a bowl of Skittles, the Mars Corporation felt obligated to tweet a response. So naturally, now that Tic Tacs are on a 24/7 cable loop as Donald Trump's favored breath mint before assaulting women, they too feel the need to put out a statement:

Which colorful pellet-shaped food item will be next?

From a purely political perspective, should Democrats root for Trump to drop out of the race? On the one hand, it would throw the Republican Party into total chaos. That has to be good for Team D. On the other hand, it would allow Republicans to start fresh with a new candidate who wasn't a huge albatross around their necks. On the third hand, it would demoralize Trump's core supporters, who might stay home entirely and leave the field wide open for downballot Democrats to win a landslide victory. On the fourth hand, Hillary Clinton is none too popular, and a Trumpless GOP might very well re-attract a lot of moderate voters who have steadily defected thanks to Khan-Curiel-Machado-$916-Million-gate